Battlecruisers F2 & F3 (NB) - Guide 378

The F2 and F3 designs, un-built battlecruiser designs of the British Royal Navy, are today's subject.
Read more about the ships here:
www.amazon.co.uk/British-Batt...
www.amazon.co.uk/British-Batt...
www.amazon.co.uk/Warships-Aft...
Naval History books, use code 'DRACH' for 25% off - www.usni.org/press/books?f%5B...
Free naval photos and more - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini...
Want a poster? - www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
'Legionnaire' by Scott Buckley - released under CC-BY 4.0. www.scottbuckley.com.au

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@Geoff31818]

Hi drachinifel, is there a British design around this time that is the equivalent to the US Tillman designs or a design that makes you wonder what cocktail of drugs the designers were taking?

[@WarrantOfficerWill22]

If Carriers didn’t exist, what would most likely have been the next bearer of the Name Enterprise? It seems that Enterprise’s name transcended class rules in the US Navy as the previous 5 Enterprises seemed to be a rather diverse bunch with nothing particularly in common.

[@LATERi]

Ok, I have a weird one, what is the largest fresh water battle ever fought? I have been thinking about this for a while without looking into it, and if I had to guess I would bet its a land force fighting on ice.

[@bkjeong4302]

Could it be argued that the fleet aircraft carrier, being a fast capital ship with minimal anti-surface protection that relies on its mobility and massive range advantage rather than armour to keep it safe, is an even more extreme and more successful example of the battlecruiser concept than the original battlecruiser concept itself?

[@dougjb7848]

It’s still an open debate on how the British 16” guns matched up against other navies’ 16”. Given that, if RN had accepted “only” 15” guns, might-could they have built two F3? We know the 15”/42 was a superb weapon …

[@exsubmariner]

It's hard to believe these ships would have received a speeding ticket in most rural roads in Wales but interviewing 800 men to find out who was driving would be problematic

[@saoirseewing4877]

To say nothing of the fines for damaging the road.

[@dougjb7848]

Also for having too many vowels in their names.

[@gmansi]

​@@saoirseewing4877😂

[@josepetersen7112]

LoL. Come move to Idaho, with our standing 45-50 MPH rural, unposted, speed.

[@andylee6785]

Only if leading seaman Goldstien was on lookout!

[@scdallav]

I love that UA Dreadnaughts is basically KSP for Naval youtube.

[@willyvereb]

Alas NavalArt is too niche and overall less accessible. Also it looks less nice, even though it's basically a more realistic Rule The Waves.

[@mrkalaspuff_3866]

What's KSP?

[@cookiecraze1310]

Playinf UAD rn as i watch drachnifel, the only game where i can conquer France by death stacking 30 N3's.

[@stormy0307]

@@mrkalaspuff_3866kerbal space program. It’s a rocket building / flying game

[@juncheok8579]

​@mrkalaspuff_3866 i assume its kerbal space program

[@dougjb7848]

3:10 On the drawing, the secondary guns go “twin-single-twin-single.” Not “single-twin-twin-single.” To paraphrase _Clue:_ That’s two plus one plus two plus one, not one plus two plus two plus one.

[@JohnDoe-ee6qs]

Love that movie, singing telegram

[@Kevin_Kennelly]

2:18 "or some other horrifically mind-numbing permutation of the British turret naming system"

[@Wolfeson28]

We should just start mixing and matching turret naming conventions just to annoy everyone. A, 15.2, and Omega, maybe?

[@Kevin_Kennelly]

@@Wolfeson28 Ozzie. Harriet.

[@rivetjoint9628]

I think you may have opened a can of worms with mention of the 15"/50 LOL

[@greycatturtle7132]

😂😂😂😂

[@GeneralKenobiSIYE]

I do love battlecruisers. For some reason they are my favorite capital type.

[@overlordminigun6346]

They’re the do it all of capitol ships if you do them right. Fast enough to follow cruisers and destroyers and heavily armoured enough to withstand anything that’s not a battleship shell while being heavily armed enough to kill everything but a battleship since they can just run from those. Does help that ones like Hood and Alaska are exceptionally pretty

[@argus0018]

@@overlordminigun6346Oh lordy you called the Alaskas battlecruisers

[@overlordminigun6346]

@@argus0018 Aye I know I committed sacrilege and didn’t acknowledge that they’re the first and only giga mega super battlecruiser heavy cruiser fast battleships and potential guided missile cruisers of the US Navy

[@bkjeong4302]

I only really like the battlecruisers that are fast battleships born two decades early. There’s a reason I consider Hood the pinnacle of the big gun: every single ship that matched or surpassed her on the combined speed-firepower-armour axis came about when battleship strategic viability was on its last ropes if not beyond that.

[@tomhenry897]

Didn’t they have 12 inch guns That’s a battleship gun

[@elcastorgrande]

"Such are the vagaries of history." An epitaph for more than one ship.

[@princeoftonga]

For a while now I’ve been trying to flesh out an alternate history scenario where the RAN and RNZN each have a battlecruiser in WW2. With this info on the F2/F3s a variation has popped into my head: let’s say for whatever reason the RAN and RNZN do get a battlecruiser each at Washington. They are only allowed existing ships most people expect that means Lion class BC. However some bright spark in the RN decides to go rules lawyer and the Aussies and kiwis get Renown and Repulse instead with the Lions being scrapped. Now the Renown’s are specified in the treaty but the RN doesn’t have them anymore. So they manage to sell building 2 F3s as replacements! Now none of the other powers are particularly happy but the F3s are just replacements for the Renowns. They are just Battlecruisers armed with 15inch guns not Battleships with 16inch guns and heavy armour!

[@GearGuardianGaming]

i am kinda hoping this could have been a possibility, which also means that it could be possible that renown and/or repulse could have survived the war. repulse is hands down the most beautiful ship imo and to see her afloat and a museum would do my heart well.

[@genericpersonx333]

A much simpler and more likely scenario is the Royal Navy builds two F3s instead of the Nel-Rods battleships, then transfers the Renown and Repulse to the Colonial navies. This avoids the issue that the British Empire already having more than 525,000 tons under the Treaty. As written, your scenario is suggesting that in addition to the 560,000 tons the British already got, their colonial subfleets would have 70,000 tons of battlecruiser as well, giving the Empire as a whole more like 600,000 tons. I don't see Japan or the USA really accepting only 300,000 and 525,000 tons respectively under those conditions. Your scenario also leaves out Canada, and Canadian pride is relevant. As Dr. Alexander Clarke has touched on in several lectures on his channel, the Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders all had their own agendas WITHIN the British Imperial Naval system, and if you start fiddling with what ships each of the colonies could have, the colonies would not necessarily sit quiet but start arguing for their own reasons. Long and short, I could see a world where Aussies sailed a battlecruiser for their King, but not with Nel-Rod battleships AND F2/F3s as well.

[@princeoftonga]

@@genericpersonx333 I agree that F3s instead of Nelsons makes the most sense in that case. It does mean that that the RN doesn’t have any 16 inch armed capital ships during the interwar era. However this could possibly be justified on a logistics basis with all RN and Commonwealth capital ships armed with 15 inch guns. Plus the ability to up gun the existing ships with the 15in/50 would be attractive. However it’s probably more realistic for the Commonwealth navies to get the Lions as these would be seen as less capable by the other powers at Washington and therefore more acceptable to be kept around. I think the political will could have been there for separate Commonwealth navies in the post WW1 time period. The New Zealand government had been worried about a relative lack of RN ships providing local defence during the war and with the now Soviet Union and possibly the Japanese Empire being seen as future threats i could see a RNZN earlier than historically.

[@genericpersonx333]

@@princeoftonga For myself, I think an even better solution would have been for the Royal Navy to keep two more battlecruisers and drop two of the battleships, either R-Class and/or Queen-Elizabeths, and assign a battlecruiser to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to be the flagships of their respective realm squadrons. This way, the United Kingdom can relieve itself of paying for three battlecruisers, it keeps the battlecruisers closer to where they are needed for anti-cruiser missions, and then the Royal Navy proper can keep Hood and one battlecruiser, probably a Renown-class, to be the flying squadron that goes where needed. Meanwhile, with ten good battleships, especially the two Nel-Rods, that is enough to face the US Atlantic or Pacific Fleets or the entire IJN in a stand-up fight, while the battlecruisers raise hell everywhere the enemy battleships aren't.

[@princeoftonga]

@@genericpersonx333 Yeah in WW2 modernised Lion, Princess Royal and Tiger would have been really useful. Imagine at River Plate you have Lion with the two light cruisers. I don’t think Graff Spee is making it to Montevideo in that one. Two rebuilt Lions probably stand a decent chance against the two Scharnhorsts. Also perhaps the Australian and New Zealand Lions are part of Force Z with PoW maybe with Repulse or without but the extra AA fire may just save Force Z that gives ABDA command some heavyweight support in 42 delaying the Japanese conquest of the East Indies. Makes the Pacific war quite different. I think for just the RN keeping the 13.5 inch ships around probably isn’t worth it as the logistics of having 13.5, 14(KGVs),16(Nelsons) and 15inch shells would be a pain. But for three individual dominion navies each only supplying 13.5 inch capital ships would make sense.

[@attilarischt2851]

I actually never thought about the possibility of saving weight by making all turrets be at the front. I always thought that was done simply to concentrate firepower during a chase. Shows me that you can learn new things every day, even if it's not exactly something I will use in my life.

[@simonrook5743]

Using 20/20 hindsight, fast battleships would prove much more valuable in WW2 than the more conventional type, just look at how much heavy lifting the relatively archaic Kongo’s did for Japan while the Fusos and Nagatos did relatively little.

[@RocketHarry865]

And the Queen Elizabeth class cold and slow in comparison to newer battleship designs, did a lot of invaluable work in the Mediterranean when the much newer KGV's were still getting built and fitted out

[@simonrook5743]

@@RocketHarry865 but for Taranto Illustrious had no battleship escort as none available were fast enough, an immediate example of what fast battleships would have been more valuable. Yes the QE’s did good work, but fast BBs would have been more helpful than the Nelsons I believe (which were slower than the QEs).

[@glennsimpson7659]

You need to consider the strong pacifist sentiment in Australia (as well as in NZ and Canada) the early 1930s, as well as the severe economic depression. Australia, for example, could not afford to keep even its V&W class Destroyers in Commission - running a Battlecruiser would have been totally unaffordable and the ship would have been scrapped as a cost saving measure.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

@@RocketHarry865 "KGV's were still getting built and fitted out" is the problem. The KGVs didn't exist yet. If the Nelsons were faster, then they may have ended up more utilized than the QEs.

[@jonathanj8303]

If they'd been built, the 15" 50calibre would also have been available as an upgrade - if not necessarily a bolt on one - for all the 15"" 42c RN ships. That might have changed a few things, even if only the most heavily refitted/rebuilt ships got them. That's assuming that the treaties didn't somehow forbid it.

[@rorythomas9469]

I think unlikely the barrels are replaced, but the breaches may have been modified in a refit to accept supercharges as on Vanguard.

[@purplefood1]

I think there were some parts of the treaty to kinda ban the building of ships that were clearly intended to just be refitted when it comes to wartime. Could be wrong

[@juicysushi]

It would have been permitted as the guns were still 15s. But it just makes an even harder hitting Warspite.

[@jonathanj8303]

@@juicysushi Special clause in the draft for the second London treaty, "No refitting or up gunning Warspite, she's already +5 on everything."

[@MaxCroat]

@@purplefood1 But the argument is not about building new ships just to refit them, but rather the argument is that already existing ships could have been refitted with these new guns. I don't think there was a ban on refitting existing ships, and since these new guns wouldn't have been any larger in caliber than the existing guns on these ships, I think the RN may have been ok to do that.

[@leestewart72]

How about a video comparing Germany's smaller vessels, M-boats, R-boats, and S-boats, and their capabilities and roles. How did the M-boats compare in capability to the Flower class vessels of the RN?

[@dennisfox8673]

Great suggestion-I’d be pretty interested in that as well.

[@Benzo7]

Could you do a video on the L3 battleship design? I know it’s just “one of the designs in the program that led to N3” but it’s cool and I’m absolutely obsessed with it

[@davidgifford8112]

I’m inclined to agree as WWII events transpired the RN would have been better served with 15” fast battle “cruisers” than the sluggish Rod Oil and Nels Oil. I also remain perplexed that Britain doggishly kept to their displacement limits when building armoured hulls to treaty displacements, under armed, that could be up armed should a shooting war break out.

[@tomhenry897]

Already had the design and machinery for them

[@davidchambers8697]

If the F3's matched the power/ protection of the Colorados, and were ~ 30 knots, I should think them a better buy than the 03's in the 1920s. Especially when you consider the speed of the Japanese battle line.

[@mikeynth7919]

If these had come out as speedy, they would likely not only been employed differently, but likely had received a higher priority in shipyards for overhauls. And the KGV might have come out a wee bit different with these examples being in the fleet.

[@RedXlV]

There probably would've also been a more forceful argument to go with a 15" armed version, on the basis of logistics. If the entire fleet is using 15" guns (rather than the logistics of multiple calibers *already* being something the Royal Navy was dealing with), why not still with what's working?

[@RedXlV]

I've always felt a pair of F3s would've been more useful than the Nelsons. Particularly given that Britain's overly lightweight 16" shell wouldn't have been *that* much of an improvement in lethality over the excellent 15" shell fired out of a longer barrel. And in terms of accuracy and barrel life, the 16"/45 is actually a downgrade. But the substantial speed increase over the Nelsons (5.5 knots faster is a lot) with almost as good armor would've been incredibly useful.

[@markpaxton144]

They could have called the triple turrets, Angela, Beryl and Christine

[@mattblom3990]

Love the designs - the turret layouts, Queen Anne's mansion, and design of the hulls are reminiscent of "brutalist" architecture in my opinion.

[@MonkeyJedi99]

My American reflex at hearing they would have 4 anti-aircraft installations was to say, "That's it? You need more guns for your guns!!!"

[@cathyharrop3348]

I hope you've offered those UAD designs to various shared ship packs. That looks like great work.

[@williamgreen7415]

Thanks!

[@agesflow6815]

Thank you, Drachinifel.

[@user-hw1qo2mu9e]

Thanks Drach.

[@lewiswestfall2687]

Thanks Drach

[@tekteam26]

It would be interesting to see a briefing on the J3 battleship/battlecruiser concepts

[@malcolmtaylor518]

Didn't know anything about these. Great illustrations.

[@tragicthegarnering3619]

Considering the Rodney has the only confirmed main gun penetrations on the Bismark, it would be interesting to see how it would have gone with one of these in place of the Rodney.

[@aidanacebo9529]

interesting to see the design of the Nelson class wasn't too entirely novel by this point in history.

[@JevansUK]

Nelson's belt armour was changed from 18 to 15 degrees after the last Legend was produced. I imagine had the f3 been forwarded then the same might well have been done. Also remember that "12 inch" belt armour will actually be 480lb plate as in Hood a true 12 inch plate would be 490lb plate

[@AsbestosMuffins]

all guns forward battlecruiser, pretty bold considering at least the nelsons could backup that stance with armor

[@frankgulla2335]

A sneak peek into the minds of the Admiralty during the Inter-war year.

[@craigpalmer9196]

dreadnaught TEXAS is back on the water

[@MonkeyJedi99]

Woo-hoo!

[@tonymanero5544]

The designs are technically interesting. But in WW2, radar was the differentiator. In total darkness, the USS South Dakota’s electrical outage left it blind and lame, while the USS Washington with radar directed gunfire set the IJN Kirishima in flames in 5 minutes at 5,000 yards when IJN has no radar for detection. No armor scheme can protect repeated hits of 14-16” shells that radar made possible in most weather and visibility conditions.

[@rupertboleyn3885]

But note that the Japanese were shooting up the Americans without having radar themselves. Radar was great and wonderful and all, but it gave an extension of already existing capabilities (and it took a while to iron out the kinks, and learn how to use it right).

[@RodolfoDM]

First i said, fun Some HMS Nelson prototypes, but is great information , then i was thinking how they would look in UA at 3:50 ty, is a great addition

[@javelin2811]

These are needed for malevolent creek!

[@ph89787]

Suddenly I realise where Michael Di Martino and Bryan Konietzko got inspiration for the Fire Nation’s Warship in Avatar: The Last Airbender.

[@chiseldrock]

my Dad comissioned the RCN O-Boats (Ojibwa et al.) a look at they're history would be interesting...

[@jimtalbott9535]

4:10 - Ok, this looks much better with the triple turrets.

[@neighbor-j-4737]

Almost all my ships in Warship Gunner II had this design. Real world impractical, maybe? But absolutely dominant in high speed target obliteration.

[@alexandermarken7639]

To be honest I think the F classes are the ideal ships for the Royal Navy and would have been preferred over the Nelson's. Also the KGV class as a whole would have been less likely to exist as built but closer to an iteration of the F class.

[@jehb8945]

Interesting ships and I could have easily seen these being built instead of the Nelson's yes they had more powerful guns but in the scheme of things in world War II the 16-inch weapons weren't exactly necessary as the 14-inch guns on the King George v class battleships were more than enough to harm Bismarck so when would assume the 15 inch 50 caliber guns would have been up to the job and don't forget vanguard had BL 15s Also who knows maybe a refined in the 30s could have increased the speed of the f2 and f3 battle cruisers

[@frederiknielsen6038]

6x 15" guns seems just a little under gunned for a 35k ton capital ship

[@overlordminigun6346]

The Germans were planning something similar with the Scharnhorsts so it probably wouldn’t have been that big of a limitation

[@dsmx85]

Possibly but, it was supposed to be a battle cruiser and Renown and Repulse also had 6 15" inch guns. In the end had things turned out differently I can't see the Royal navy trading a bit more armour and 1 knot of additional speed over having 3 additional guns per ship.

[@LeeBrasher]

It's easy to criticize Fisher for his speed fetish, but lo and behold, it turns out that for WWII purposes, big-gun ships came in two categories: fast/useful, and slow/"shore bombardment."

[@bkjeong4302]

Fast big-gun units weren’t that useful either, they ended up as gigantic destroyers rather than viable capital ships.

[@zippy5131]

AH! the what if's, love them. But sadly won't be able to fight them as NAVWAR is up for sale....

[@Rastek19]

I love Nelsons

[@martinan22]

Why didn't they design them with one less turret but with space to add one, in case of war when all such agreements would be null and void? That would have allowed for more armour within the treaty limits.

[@tomhenry897]

Didn’t the Japanese do this? Mounted 5 or 6 inch Designed for 6 or 8 inch Swapped out just before the war

[@martinan22]

@@tomhenry897 Our host would know :)

[@kkupsky6321]

As far as opening themes, this is all right, but it’s no Cab Calloway for Sunday. I love the dry dock.

[@dakotalane1911]

Oh to have a time machine

[@lolroflpmsl]

Times like this, double-superfiring would be beneficial...

[@liladoodle]

Aren't these what Rooke & Hawke in WoWs are based on?

[@vikinggamer9545]

No hawke is K3 and rooke is J3 both part of the unrestricted tonnage designd

[@Drachinifel]

Collingwood is kinda F2 left a little too long in the mutating acid, bit that's about it. 😀

[@RedXlV]

@@Drachinifel Collingwood is what I'd consider a Wargaming-invented "O2". A mashup of F2 and Nelson.

[@Iron_Blood_Enjoyer1933]

No they're not, Rooke is design J3 & Hawke is design K3. The closest thing to the F2 design in WoWs is the Tier VII premium, the Collingwood.

[@stuartaaron613]

Drach, wouldn't the RN have used the same turret nomenclature for the F2/F3 as they used on the Nelsons?

[@Drachinifel]

Possibly, but there is no consistency in the choices made between the various RN ships with 3 forward gun mountings, so the choice could be entirely arbitrary.

[@paulhubsch5111]

Cattle Bruisers

[@geoffburrill9850]

Would have been more use than the Nelson class due to their high speed.

[@RedXlV]

And F3's firepower wouldn't really have even been any worse than the Nelsons', due to the very questionable design of Britain's 16" shells (which were much lighter than any other nation's shells of the same caliber). Since F3 would use the same shells out of her 15"/50s as the pre-treaty British BBs fired from their 15"/42s, that's a 1,938 lb APC shell with 48.5 lb bursting charge. While the British 16"/45 fired a 2,048 lb AP shell with a 51.2 lb bursting charge. That's much smaller than the difference between a 15" and 16" shell *should* be. And the 15"/42 guns were consistently more accurate than the Nelsons' 16"/45. If the 15"/50 were able to match the accuracy of the 15"/42 while giving the shells higher velocity, I'd take that over the 16"/45 any day. The tiny increase in lethality of the lightweight 16" shell wouldn't really matter if you're scoring hits more often with the 15" shell. And F3 with that 5.5 knots better speed than the Nelsons would *still* have excellent armor, so you're not losing very much to get that speed.

[@wheelmanv]

Really after hood the name battlecruiser in British seemed to mean what we now call fast battleships

[@nnoddy8161]

Why did the RN abandon the transom stern, especially given its speed advantage, not to be seen again until Vanguard.

[@rob5944]

I never knew that RN ships avoided angled funnels in order to confuse ramgefinding.

[@RM-we7px]

F3 would have been sweet!

[@Cholin3947]

Would the nine gun ships have been suitable to act as heavy Carrier escorts and would that have made them more useful in WW2 than the Nelsons?

[@tomhenry897]

Would need more AA

[@silverhost9782]

These ships sound like they would have been supremely capable if they had been built

[@ahseaton8353]

Was there any thought for an F4 design with quad turrets? It's not inconceivable, since the KGV's had them. They could have put 8 guns in two turrets like the French Richelieu's and probably saved weight on a shorter citadel, which was the whole point of the all forward turrets.

[@Ross665]

It is an interesting idea, but one I could see being riddled with problems. Historically, Quad turrets were known to "knock" themselves out when firing all the barrels at the same time, like Prince of Wales at Denmark Straight. But at the same time, the RN would have 15-20 odd years to iron out the kinks.....

[@RedXlV]

No, I don't think any consideration was given to that. France had already been designing quad turrets prior to WW1 (though the ships that would've carried them were never completed as battleships and no 13.4" quads ever seem to have been built) and actually had never designed any battleship-caliber triple turret, so going with that layout on the Dunkerques and Richelieus was a natural progression. But Britain didn't look into the idea of quad turrets until the 1930s.

[@ahseaton8353]

One interesting feature of the French Quad turrets is the gap between the middle two guns. The turret had an armored "firewall" down the middle of the turret. The idea was that if one side has hit or jammed, or somesuch, the other half could continue firing. However, if one side is blown up, the turret itself may not be able to rotate, rendering the surviving guns basically useless. Was this separation ever useful in combat, like at Mers-el-Kabir?

[@lachbullen8014]

There is one problem I would like to point out having about the design all the guns facing forward would make it vulnerable to chain detonation it takes a lucky bomb mine Torpedo in the right spot and blow the ship to hell.. having all guns set forward reduces the distribution of fire having the armoured belts and citadel reduces cost and displacement also having only one central Fire Control station for the main guns it would have a significant advantage in an enemy Stern Chase but if the position was reverse it would be vulnerable to stern Chase allowing the enemy to bring their forward guns to bear allowing to hit in vulnerable places such as the boilers and engine rooms causing severe damage and why the secondary guns could fire back they're firing arcs would be reduced either by debris or structure in the way.. There's also the fact in the line of Battle having all guns facing forward it would allow it to concentrate fire on a single enemy ship but allowing two enemy ships that have a gun layout of two forward and two aft allowing more significant concentrate if one ship was in the firing arc of the main guns why the other ship wasn't..

[@waverleyjournalise5757]

If one of your main magazines goes up, you've lost the ship irrespective of anything else

[@ifga16]

Having the funnel so close to the control super structure on the F2 and F3s would have smoked out the captain and other bridge inhabitants. The Japanese bent and twisted their pipes to ridiculous angles to try to avoid this.

[@WalterReimer]

I can see these becoming premium ships in World of Warships.

[@markknoxx7164]

Already in the game HMS Collingwood it has 16.5 inch guns

[@kingssuck06]

Anime girl commander included for only $100 each! Get yours today!

[@RedXlV]

@@markknoxx7164 Collingwood is loosely based on them, but its more of a fictional "O2" design. It honestly surprises me that the proper F2 and F3 *haven't* already been sold as premiums.

[@markknoxx7164]

@@RedXlV now that I would consider paying for

[@petehoskins1267]

Correct as per the other posts, this is in WoW called HMS Collingwood, instead of the Nelson’s 9 x 406mm, Collingwood is 6 x 419mm. Cheers.

[@katrinapaton5283]

Can ANYONE explain to me how the turret layout on the G3 and N3 makes any sense at all? Its firing arc is very limited and no use at all if you are either chasing or fleeing from an enemy warship. Granted, it's unlikely they would flee from the enemy but this layout seems inferior to an all forward layout.

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

So basically, the proto-Nelsons

[@greycatturtle7132]

Yep

[@waltergolston6187]

like the new theme music. A more "manly" feeling being presented, a good thing

[@billycaluwaerts3724]

Hmm,two F3's at the Denmark straight😮

[@peterasp1968]

This merits a video of 30 minutes at least.

[@williestyle35]

Somewhat pragmatic designs, but all those guns forward, leaves the stern looking... bare and exposed. I can see why the RN moved on rather quickly. XD

[@Pink.andahalf]

Have you ever seen a picture of the Nelsons, which were actually built?

[@meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2]

25 knots apparently, when they thought there was a chance of catching Bismark with its rudder down.

[@davidchambers8697]

Not sure about that: If you have your stern pointing directly towards the enemy you are probably running, faster than him, and out of effective range. If you have been brought to action, you are probably turning to bring all armament to bear anyway.

[@williestyle35]

@@Pink.andahalf yes. rather nice looking ships overall, but still odd to keep all your main firepower in one place.

[@rayalbaugh4149]

Top 5 woo hoo

[@lloydknighten5071]

Why were the Brits so obsessed with putting all main guns forward?

[@merlinwizard1000]

75th, 9 March 2023

[@kennydee8296]

what if?

[@johnfisher9692]

It would have been a different WW2 if these BC's had been built and the Germans would not have enjoyed it

[@tombogan03884]

Seems like an awfully exposed stern. For WW II it would need a lot more AA guns.

[@RedXlV]

This was a 1922 design. There definitely would've been more AA guns stacked on it had it been built.

[@Philip-KA4KOE]

I'm sorry...the music?

[@anatolib.suvarov6621]

Algorithm Engagement Comment. I have to write such things so that the algorithm will share this content with other people!

[@JamesKing-el3ry]

I often wonder if drachinifel is hung

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

Nay, these're both fast battleships!

[@FirstLast_Nba]

It was almost as if the British navy was deliberately set up to fail and be seriously humbled in ww2, ALMOST.....!!!

[@dclark142002]

These are just battleships, not cruisers... Seems a good idea they werent built.

[@RedXlV]

I'm pretty sure Britain would've been well-served if they *had* built these instead of the Nelson-class battleships.

[@kevinjohnbetts]

'Prestige' has been the downfall of navies the world over. The 'F' designs are superior to the Nelson & Rodney in every way ..... except weight of shot (maybe). Unless they'd been sunk early Britain would have gotten better value out of the 'F' series than N&R during WW2.

[@RedXlV]

Absolutely. Plus having a well-proven 15"/50 gun and triple turret already in service for a decade would've been an excellent argument for those who wanted 3x3 15" instead of 3x4 (or as ultimately built, 2x4 and 1x2) 14" on the KGVs.

[@rupertboleyn3885]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[@kevinjohnbetts]

@@rupertboleyn3885Indeed it is. It's also what makes discussing history so interesting.

[@FLJBeliever1776]

Anyone want to put a bet on when these two show up in Azur Lane?

[@Grafknar]

U G L Y WITH ABSOLUTELY NO ALIBI. BC’s need to be beautiful, swift, and powerful like Hood and Repulse/Renown. This thing offends the Ghost of Jacky Fisher and we all know it.

[@bobo-cc1xw]

How dare you sir. An iowa class competitor before ww2 and rn getting a gun upgrade. Warspite with 50 cals

[@Duke_of_Petchington]

@@bobo-cc1xw Battlecruiser needed to be practical not beautiful

[@RedXlV]

They don't have the beauty of Hood, but they do have very similar capability (2.5 knots slower, but with an extra main gun, slightly better belt armor and significantly better deck armor) on nearly 8,000 tons less displacement.

[@juicysushi]

This class was probably the RN’s biggest miss of the first half of the 20th century. They would’ve been much more useful than the Nelrods. And their 15/50s could have been used to re-arm the QEs and Battlecruisers as well, and then probably the KGVs…

[@johnshepherd9676]

A KGV armed with 15"/50s would have gone from the weakest to the best Allied treaty battlleship.

[@BattleshipWarspite]

​@@johnshepherd9676King George v class was already best allied battleships as saw more action than any nation modern Battleship ww2, only modern ww2 to have mores sisters number of 5.

[@johnshepherd9676]

@@BattleshipWarspite The KGVs are so undergunned that their otherwise excellent protection is rendered useless against their most likely competitors. The 15" guns on the Bismarcks, Litorrios and Richelieus can penetrate a KGV's belt armor long before the British 14s becomes effective.